COMPARATIVE VIEW OF SLAVERY, IN DIFFERENT AGES AND NATIONS.
"E'en from my tongue some heartfelt truths may fall;
And outraged Nature claims the care of all.
These wrongs in _any_ place would force a tear;
But call for stronger, deeper feeling _here_."
"Oh, sons of freedom! equalize your laws--
Be all consistent--plead the negro's cause--
Then all the nations in your code may see,
That, black or white, Americans are free."
Between ancient and modern slavery there is this remarkable
distinction--the former originated in motives of humanity; the latter is
dictated solely by avarice. The ancients made slaves of captives taken
in war, as an amelioration of the original custom of indiscriminate
slaughter; the moderns attack defenceless people, without any
provocation, and steal them, for the express purpose of making them
slaves.
Modern slavery, indeed, in all its particulars, is more odious than the
ancient; and it is worthy of remark that the condition of slaves has
always been worse just in proportion to the freedom enjoyed by their
masters. In Greece, none were so proud of liberty as the Spartans; and
they were a proverb among the neighboring States for their severity to
slaves. The slave code of the Roman republic was rigid and tyrannical
in the extreme; and cruelties became so common and excessive, that the
emperors, in the latter days of Roman power, were obliged to enact laws
to restrain them. In the modern world, England and America are the most
conspicuous for enlightened views of freedom, and bold vindication of
the equal rights of man; yet in these two countries slave laws have been
framed as bad as they were in Pagan, iron-hearted Rome; and the customs
are in some respects more oppressive;--_modern_ slavery unquestionably
wears its very worst aspect in the Colonies of England and the United
States of North America. I hardly know how to decide their respective
claims. My countrymen are fond of pre-eminence, and I am afraid they
deserve it here--especially if we throw into the scale their loud boasts
of superiority over all the rest of the world in civil and religious
freedom. The slave codes of the United States and of the British West
Indies were originally almost precisely the same; but _their_ laws have
been growing milder and milder, while _ours_ have increased in severity.
The British have the advantage of us in this respect--they long ago
dared to describe the monster as it is; and they are now grappling with
it, with the overwhelming strength of a great nation's concentrated
energies.--The Dutch, those sturdy old friends of liberty, and the
French, who have been stark mad for freedom, rank next for the severity
of their slave laws and customs. The Spanish and Portuguese are milder
than either.
I will give a brief view of some of our own laws on this subject; for
the correctness of which, I refer the reader to Stroud's Sketch of the
Slave Laws of the United States of America. In the first place, we will
inquire upon what ground the negro slaves in this country are claimed as
property. Most of them are the descendants of persons kidnapped on the
coast of Africa, and brought here while we were British Colonies; and as
the slave-trade was openly sanctioned more than twenty years after our
acknowledged independence, in 1783, and as the traffic is still carried
on by smugglers, there are, no doubt, thousands of slaves, now living in
the United States, who are actually stolen from Africa.[J]
[Footnote J: In the new slave States, there are a great many negroes,
who can speak no other language than some of the numerous African
dialects.]
A provincial law of Maryland enacted that any white woman who married
a negro slave should serve his master during her husband's lifetime,
and that all their children should be slaves. This law was not
repealed until the end of eighteen years, and it then continued in
full force with regard to those who had contracted such marriages in the
intermediate time; therefore the descendants of white women so situated
may be slaves unto the present day. The doctrine of the common law is
that the offspring shall follow the condition of the _father_; but slave
law (with the above temporary exception) reverses the common law, and
provides that children shall follow the condition of the _mother_.
Hence mulattoes and their descendants are held in perpetual bondage,
though the _father_ is a free white man. "Any person whose _maternal_
ancestor, even in the _remotest_ degree of distance, can be shown to
have been a negro, Indian, mulatto, or a mestizo, _not_ free at the time
this law was introduced, although the _paternal_ ancestor at each
successive generation may have been a _white free_ man, is declared to
be the subject of perpetual slavery." Even the code of Jamaica, is on
this head, more liberal than ours; by an express law, slavery ceases at
the _fourth_ degree of distance from a negro ancestor: and in the other
British West Indies, the established custom is such, that quadroons or
mestizoes (as they call the second and third degrees) are rarely seen in
a state of slavery. Here, neither law nor public opinion favors the
mulatto descendants of free white men. This furnishes a convenient game
to the slaveholder--it enables him to fill his purse by means of his own
vices;--the right to sell one half of his children provides a fortune
for the remainder.--Had the maxim of the common law been allowed,--i. e.
that the offspring follows the condition of the _father_,--the
mulattoes, almost without exception, would have been free, and thus the
prodigious and alarming increase of our slave population might have been
prevented. The great augmentation of the servile class in the Southern
States, compared with the West India colonies, has been thought to
indicate a much milder form of slavery; but there are other causes,
which tend to produce the result. There are much fewer white men in the
British West Indies than in our slave States; hence the increase of the
_mulatto_ population is less rapid. Here the descendants of a colored
mother _never_ become free; in the West Indies, they cease to be slaves
in the _fourth generation_, at farthest; and their posterity increase
the _free_ colored class, instead of adding countless links to the chain
of bondage.
The manufacture of sugar is extremely toilsome, and when driven hard,
occasions a great waste of negro life; this circumstance, together with
the tropical climate of the West Indies, furnish additional reasons for
the disproportionate increase of slaves between those islands and our
own country, where a comparatively small quantity of sugar is
cultivated.
It may excite surprise, that _Indians_ and their offspring are comprised
in the doom of perpetual slavery; yet not only is _incidental_ mention
of them as slaves to be met with in the laws of most of the States of
our confederacy, but in one, at least, _direct legislation_ may be cited
to sanction their enslavement. In Virginia, an act was passed, in 1679,
declaring that "for _the better encouragement of soldiers_, whatever
Indian prisoners were taken in a war, in which the colony was then
engaged, should be _free purchase_ to the soldiers taking them;" and in
1682, it was decreed that "all servants brought into Virginia, by sea or
land, not being _Christians_, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes, or
Indians, (except Turks and Moors in amity with Great Britain) and all
Indians, which should thereafter be _sold by neighboring Indians_, or
any other trafficking with us, as slaves, _should be slaves to all
intents and purposes_." These laws ceased in 1691; but the descendants
of all Indians sold in the intermediate time are now among slaves.
In order to show the true aspect of slavery among us, I will state
distinct propositions, each supported by the evidence of actually
existing laws.
1. _Slavery is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the
slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants, to the latest
posterity._
2. _The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the
kind of labor, the amount of toil, and the time allowed for rest, are
dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A
pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and
provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the
master's discretion._
3. _The slave being considered a personal chattel, may be sold, or
pledged, or leased, at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for
marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts, or taxes,
either of a living, or a deceased master. Sold at auction, "either
individually, or in lots to suit the purchaser," he may remain with his
family, or be separated from them for ever._
4. _Slaves can make no contracts, and have no legal right to any
property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings, and the legacies
of friends belong, in point of law, to their masters._
5. _Neither a slave, nor free colored person, can be a witness against
any white or free man, in a court of justice, however atrocious may have
been the crimes they have seen him commit: but they may give testimony
against a fellow-slave, or free colored man, even in cases affecting
life._
6. _The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without
trial--without any means of legal redress,--whether his offence be real,
or imaginary: and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any
person, or persons, he may choose to appoint._
7. _The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under any
circumstances: his only safety consists in the fact that his owner may
bring suit, and recover, the price of his body, in case his life is
taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor._
8. _Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters,
though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for
their personal safety._
9. _The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations._
10. _The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the
master is willing to enfranchise them._
11. _The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious
instruction and consolation._
12. _The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of
the lowest ignorance._
13. _There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right.
What is a trifling fault in the white man, is considered highly criminal
in the slave; the same offences which cost a white man a few dollars
only, are punished in the negro with death._
14. _The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color._
PROPOSITION 1.--_Slavery hereditary and perpetual._
In Maryland the following act was passed in 1715, and is still in force:
"All negroes and other slaves, already imported, or hereafter to be
imported into this province, and all children now born, or hereafter
to be born, of such negroes and slaves, shall be slaves during their
natural lives." The law of South Carolina is, "All negroes, _Indians_,
(free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, and
mestizoes, who are _now_ free, excepted,) mulattoes or mestizoes, who
now are, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue
born, or to be born, shall be and remain for ever hereafter absolute
slaves, and shall follow the condition of _the mother_." Laws similar
exist in Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In consequence
of these laws, people so nearly white as not to be distinguished from
Europeans, may be, and have been, legally claimed as slaves.
PROP. 2.--_Labor compulsory and uncompensated, &c._
In most of the slave States the law is silent on this subject; but that
it is the established custom is proved by laws restraining the excessive
abuse of this power, in some of the States. Thus in one State there is
a fine of ten shillings, in another of two dollars, for making slaves
labor on Sunday, unless it be in works of absolute necessity, or the
necessary occasions of the family. There is likewise a law which
provides that "any master, who withholds proper sustenance, or clothing,
from his slaves, or overworks them, so as to injure their health, shall
upon _sufficient information_ [here lies the rub] being laid before the
grand jury, be by said jury presented; whereupon it shall be the duty of
the attorney, or solicitor-general, to prosecute said owners, who, on
conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine, or be imprisoned, or both,
at the discretion of the court."
The negro act of South Carolina contains the following language:
"Whereas many owners of slaves, and _others_, who have the care,
management, and overseeing of slaves, _do confine them so closely to
hard labor, that they have not sufficient time for natural rest_; be
it therefore enacted, that if any owner of slaves, or others having
the care, &c., shall put such slaves to labor more than _fifteen_ hours
in twenty-four, from the twenty-fifth of March to the twenty-fifth of
September; or more than _fourteen_ hours in twenty-four hours, from the
twenty-fifth of September to the twenty-fifth of March, any such person
shall forfeit a sum of money not exceeding twenty pounds, nor under five
pounds, current money, for every time he, she, or they, shall offend
therein, at the discretion of the justice before whom complaint shall
be made."
In Louisiana it is enacted, that "the slaves shall be allowed half an
hour for breakfast, during the whole year; from the first of May to the
first of November, they shall be allowed two hours for dinner; and
from the first of November to the first of May, one hour and a half for
dinner: provided, however, that the owners, who will themselves take the
trouble of having the meals of their slaves prepared, be, and they are
hereby authorized to abridge, by half an hour a day, the time fixed for
their rest."
All these laws, _apparently_ for the protection of the slave, are
rendered perfectly null and void, by the fact, that the testimony of
a negro or mulatto is _never_ taken against a white man. If a slave be
found toiling in the field on the Sabbath, who can _prove_ that his
master commanded him to do it?
The law of Louisiana stipulates that a slave shall have _one_ linen
shirt,[K] and a pair of pantaloons for the summer, and _one_ linen shirt
and a woollen great-coat and pantaloons for the winter; and for food,
one pint of salt, and a barrel of Indian corn, rice, or beans, every
month. In North Carolina, the law decides that a quart of corn per day
is sufficient. But, if the slave does not receive this poor allowance,
who can _prove_ the fact. The withholding of proper sustenance is
absolutely incapable of proof, unless the evidence of the sufferer
himself be allowed; and the law, as if determined to obstruct the
administration of justice, permits the master to exculpate himself by
an oath that the charges against him are false. Clothing may, indeed,
be ascertained by _inspection_; but who is likely to involve himself in
quarrels with a white master because a poor negro receives a few rags
less than the law provides? I apprehend that a person notorious for such
gratuitous acts of kindness, would have little peace or safety, in any
slaveholding country.
[Footnote K: This shirt is usually made of a coarse kind of bagging.]
If a negro be compelled to toil night and day, (as it is said they
sometimes are,[L] at the season of sugar-making) who is to _prove_ that
he works more than his fourteen or fifteen hours? No slave can be a
witness for himself, or for his fellow-slaves; and should a white man
happen to know the fact, there are ninety-nine chances out of a hundred,
that he will deem it prudent to be silent. And here I would remark that
even in the island of Jamaica, where the laws have given a most shocking
license to cruelty,--even in Jamaica, the slave is compelled to work but
_ten_ hours a day, beside having many holidays allowed him. In Maryland,
Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New-Jersey, the _convicts_
condemned to hard labor in the penitentiaries, are required by law to
toil only from _eight_ to _ten_ hours a day, according to the season of
the year; yet the law providing that the innocent slave should labor but
_fourteen_ or _fifteen_ hours a day, professes to have been made as a
merciful amelioration of his lot!--In Rome, the slaves had a yearly
festival called the Saturnalia, during which they were released from
toil, changed places with their masters, and indulged in unbounded
merriment; at first it lasted but one day; but its duration afterwards
extended to two, three, four, and five days in succession. We have no
Saturnalia here--unless we choose thus to designate a coffle of slaves,
on the fourth of July, rattling their chains to the sound of a violin,
and carrying the banner of freedom in hands loaded with irons.
[Footnote L: See Western Review, No. 2, on the Agriculture of
Louisiana.]
In Georgia, "The inferior courts of the several counties on _receiving
information on oath_ of any _infirm_ slave or slaves, being in a
suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners, can make
_particular inquiries_ into the situation of such slaves, and render
such relief as they think proper. And the said courts may sue for and
recover from the owner of such slaves the amount appropriated for their
relief." The information must, in the first place, be given by a _white
man_ upon oath; and of whom must the "particular inquiries" be made?
Not of the slave, nor of his companions,--for their evidence goes for
nothing; and would a master, capable of starving an aged slave, be
likely to confess the whole truth about it? The judges of the inferior
courts, if from defect of evidence, or any other cause, they are unable
to _prove_ that relief was absolutely needed, must pay all the expenses
from their own private purses. Are there many, think you, so desperately
enamored of justice, as to take all this trouble, and incur all this
risk, for a starving slave?
PROP. 3.--_Slaves considered personal chattels, liable to be sold,
pledged, &c._
The advertisements in the Southern papers furnish a continued proof
of this; it is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of
evidence.[M] The power to separate mothers and children, husbands and
wives, is exercised only in the British West Indies, and the _republic_
of the United States!
[Footnote M: A white man engaged in a disturbance was accompanied by
three or four slaves; his counsel contended that there were not
_persons_ enough in the affair to constitute a riot, because the slaves
were mere _chattels_ in the eye of the law. It was, however, decided
that when liable to the _punishment_ of the law, they were persons.]
In Louisiana there is indeed a humane provision in this respect: "If at
a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled
through old age or otherwise, and who have children, such slaves shall
not be sold but with such of his or of her children, whom he or she may
think proper to go with." But though parents cannot be sold apart from
their children, without their consent, yet the master may keep the
parents and sell the _children_, if he chooses; in which case the
separation is of course equally painful.--"By the _Code Noir_, of Louis
the Fourteenth, husbands and wives, parents and children, are not
allowed to be sold separately. If sales contrary to this regulation are
made by process of law, under _seizure for debts_, such sales are
declared void; but if such sales are made _voluntarily_ on the part of
the owner, a wiser remedy is given--the wife, or husband, children, or
parent retained by the seller, may be claimed by the purchaser, without
any additional price; and thus the separated family may be re-united
again. The most solemn agreement between the parties contrary to this
rule has been adjudged void." In the Spanish, Portuguese, and French
colonies, plantation slaves are considered _real estate_, attached to
the soil they cultivate, and of course not liable to be torn from their
homes whenever the master chooses to sell them; neither can they be
seized or sold by their master's creditors.
The following quotation shows how the citizens of this country bear
comparison with men _called_ savages. A recent traveller in East Florida
says: "Another trait in the character of the Seminole Indians, is their
great indulgence to their slaves. The greatest pressure of hunger or
thirst never occasions them to impose onerous labors on the negroes, or
to dispose of them, though tempted by high offers, if the latter are
unwilling to be sold."
PROP. 4.--_Slaves can have no legal claim to any property._
The civil code of Louisiana declares: "_All that a slave possesses
belongs to his master_--he possesses nothing of his own, except his
peculium, that is to say, the sum of money or moveable estate, which
_his master chooses he should possess_."--"Slaves are incapable of
inheriting or transmitting property."--"Slaves cannot dispose of, or
receive, by donation, unless they have been enfranchised conformably
to law, or are expressly enfranchised by the act, by which the donation
is made to them."
In South Carolina "it is not lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade,
&c., without a license from his owner; nor shall any slave be allowed
to keep any boat or canoe, for his own benefit, or raise any horses,
cattle, sheep, or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, boats,
canoes, horses, &c., &c.; and it shall be lawful for _any person_ to
seize and take away from any slave all such goods, boats, &c., and to
deliver the same into the hands of the nearest justice of the peace;
and if the said justice be satisfied that such seizure has been made
according to law, he shall order the goods to be sold at public outcry;
one half of the moneys arising from the sale to go to the State, and the
other half to him or them that sue for the same." In North Carolina
there is a similar law; but half of the proceeds of the sale goes to the
county poor, and half to the informer.
In Georgia, a fine of thirty dollars a week is imposed upon any master
who allows his slave to hire himself out for his own benefit. In
Virginia, if a master permit his slave to hire himself out, he is
subject to a fine, from ten to twenty dollars; and it is lawful for any
person, and the _duty_ of the Sheriff, to apprehend the slave. In
Maryland, the master, by a similar offence, except during twenty days
at harvest time, incurs a penalty of twenty dollars per month.
In Mississippi, if a master allow his slave to cultivate cotton for his
own use, he incurs a fine of fifty dollars; and if he license his slave
to trade on his own account, he forfeits fifty dollars for each and
every offence. Any person trading with a slave forfeits four times the
value of the article purchased; and if unable to pay, he receives
thirty-nine lashes, and pays the cost.
Among the Romans, the Grecians, and the ancient Germans, slaves were
permitted to acquire and enjoy property of considerable value, as their
own. This property was called the slave's _peculium_; and "the many
anxious provisions of the Imperial Code on the subject, plainly show the
general extent and importance of such acquisitions."--"The Roman slave
was also empowered by law to enter into commercial and other contracts,
by which the master was bound, to the extent of the value of the slave's
_peculium_."--"The Grecian slaves had also their _peculium_; and were
rich enough to make periodical presents to their masters, as well as
often to purchase their freedom."
"The Helots of Sparta were so far from being destitute of property, or
of legal powers necessary to its acquisition, that they were farmers of
the lands of their masters, at low fixed rents, which the proprietor
could not raise without dishonor."
"In our own day, the Polish slaves, prior to any recent alleviations of
their lot, were not only allowed to hold property, but endowed with it
by their lords."--"In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, the money and
effects, which a slave acquires, by his labor at times set apart for his
own use, or by any other honest means, are legally his own, and cannot
be seized by the master."--"In Africa, slaves may acquire extensive
property, which their sable masters cannot take away. In New-Calabar,
there is a man named Amachree, who has more influence and wealth than
all the rest of the community, though he himself is a purchased slave,
brought from the Braspan country; he has offered the price of a hundred
slaves for his freedom; but according to the laws of the country he
cannot obtain it, though his master, who is a poor and obscure
individual, would gladly let him have it."
Among the Jews, a servant, or slave, often filled the highest offices
of honor and profit, connected with the family. Indeed slavery among
this ancient people was in its mildest, patriarchal form; and the same
character is now stamped upon the _domestic_ slavery of Africa. St. Paul
says, "The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a
servant, [the Hebrew word translated _servant_ means _slave_] though he
be lord of all." Gal. iv. 1. Again; "A wise servant shall have rule over
a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among
the brethren." Proverbs, xvii. 2. The wealthy patriarch Abraham, before
the birth of Isaac, designed to make his head servant, Eleazer of
Damascus, his heir.
PROP. 5.--_No colored man can be evidence against a white man, &c._
This is an almost universal rule of slave law. The advocates of slavery
seem to regard it as a necessary consequence of the system, which
neither admits of concealment, nor needs it. "In one or two of our
States this rule is founded upon _usage_; in others it is sanctioned
by _express legislation_."
So long as this rule is acted upon, it is very plain, that all
regulations made for the protection of the slave are perfectly
useless;--however grievous his wrongs, they _cannot be proved_. The
master is merely obliged to take the precaution not to starve, or
mangle, or murder his negroes, _in the presence of a white man_. No
matter if five hundred colored people be present, they cannot testify
to the fact. Blackstone remarks, that "rights would be declared in
vain, and in vain directed to be observed, if there were no method of
recovering and asserting those rights, when wrongfully withheld, or
invaded."
Stephens says: "It seems to result from the brief and general accounts
which we have of the law of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements,
though I find it nowhere expressly noticed, that slaves there are not,
in all cases at least, incompetent witnesses. But even in the French
Windward Islands the evidence of negro slaves was admitted against all
free persons, the master only excepted; and that in criminal as well as
in civil cases, where the testimony of white people could not be found
to establish the facts in dispute. The _Code Noir_ merely allowed a
slave's testimony to be heard by the judge, as a suggestion which might
throw light on other evidence, without amounting of itself to any
degree of legal proof. But the Sovereign Council of Martinique, humbly
represented to his majesty that great inconveniences might result from
the execution of this law, by the _impunity_ of many crimes, which
_could not be proved otherwise than by the testimony of slaves_; and
they prayed that such evidence might be received in all cases in which
there should not be sufficient proof by free witnesses. In consequence
of this, the article in question was varied so far as to admit the
testimony of slaves, when white witnesses were wanting, except against
their masters."
PROP. 6.--_The master has absolute power to punish a slave, &c._
Stroud says, "There was a time in many, if not in all the slaveholding
districts of our country, when the murder of a slave was followed by a
pecuniary fine only. In one State, the change of the law in this respect
has been very recent. At the present date (1827) I am happy to say
the wilful, malicious, deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever
perpetrated, is _declared_ to be punishable with death in every State.
The evil is not that the laws _sanction_ crime, but that they do not
_punish_ it. And this arises chiefly, if not solely, from the exclusion
of the testimony, on the trial of a white person, of all those who are
_not_ white."
"The conflicting influences of humanity and prejudice are strangely
contrasted in the law of North Carolina on this subject. An act passed
in 1798, runs thus: 'Whereas by another act of assembly, passed in
the year 1774, the killing of a slave, however wanton, cruel, and
deliberate, is only punishable in the first instance by imprisonment,
and paying the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of
criminality between the murder of a white person and one _who is equally
a human creature, but merely of a different complexion_, is disgraceful
to humanity, and degrading in the highest degree to the laws and
principles of a free Christian, and enlightened country, be it enacted,
&c., that if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully and
maliciously killing a slave, such offender shall, upon the first
conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the
same punishment as if he had killed a free man; _Provided always, this
act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue
of any act of assembly of this State, or to any slave in the act of
resistance[N] to his lawful owner or master, or to any slave_ DYING
_under_ MODERATE CORRECTION.'"
[Footnote N: "It has been judicially determined that it is _justifiable_
to kill a slave, resisting, or _offering to resist_ his master by
force."--_Stroud._]
In the laws of Tennessee and Georgia, there is a similar proviso. Where
could such a monstrous anomaly be found, save in a code of slave laws?
_Die_ of _moderate_ punishment!! Truly, this _is_ an unveiling of
consciences!
"To set the matter in its proper light, it may be added that a
proclamation, of _outlawry_[O] against a slave is authorized, whenever
he runs away from his master, conceals himself in some obscure retreat,
and to sustain life, kills a _hog_, or some animal of the cattle kind!
[Footnote O: "The outlawry of a slave is not, I believe, an unusual
occurrence. Very recently, a particular account was given of the killing
of a black man, _not charged with any offence_, by a person in pursuit
of an _outlawed_ slave; owing, as it was stated, to the person killed
not _answering_ a call made by his pursuers. Whether the call was
_heard_ or not, of course could not be assertained, nor did it appear
to have excited any inquiry."--_Stroud._]
"A pecuniary mulct was the only restraint upon the wilful murder of a
slave, from the year 1740 to 1821, a period of more than eighty years.
I find in the case of _The State vs. M'Gee, 1 Bay's Reports_, 164, it is
said incidentally by Messrs. Pinckney and Ford, counsel for the State,
that the _frequency_ of the offence was owing to the nature of the
punishment. This was said in the public court-house by men of great
respectability; nevertheless, thirty years elapsed before a change of
the law was effected. So far as I have been able to learn, the following
section has disgraced the statute-book of South Carolina from the year
1740 to the present hour: 'In case any person shall wilfully cut out
the tongue, put out the eye, _cruelly_ scald, burn, or deprive any
slave of any limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel
punishment,--[_otherwise than by whipping, or beating, with a horsewhip,
cowskin, switch, or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining,
or imprisoning such slave_,]--every such person shall, for every such
offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money.' Here is
direct legislation to _sanction_ beating without limit, with horsewhip
or cowskin,--the application of irons to the human body,--and perpetual
incarceration in a dungeon, according to the will of the master; and the
mutilation of limbs is paid by a trifling penalty!
"The revised code of Louisiana declares: 'The slave is entirely subject
to the will of the master, who may correct and chastise him, though not
with _unusual_ rigor, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose
him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death.'" Who shall
decide what punishment is _unusual_?
In Missouri, if a slave refuses to obey his or her master, mistress,
overseer, or employer, in any lawful commands, such slaves may be
committed to the county jail, there to remain as long as his owner
pleases.
In some of the States there are indeed restraining laws; but they are
completely ineffectual, from the difficulty of obtaining the evidence
of _white men_.
"The same despotic power can be exerted by the attorney, manager,
driver, or any other person who is, for the time being, placed over
the slave by order of the owner, or his delegates. The following is
the language of the Louisiana code; and it represents the established
customs of all the slaveholding States: 'The condition of a slave being
merely a passive one, his subordination to his master, and to all who
_represent_ him, is not susceptible of any modification, or restriction,
[except in what can incite the slave to the commission of crime] in such
manner, that he owes to his master, and to all his family, a respect
without bounds, and an absolute obedience; and he is consequently to
execute all the orders, which he receives from his said master, or from
them.'"
What chance of mercy the slave has from the generality of overseers, may
be conjectured from the following testimony given by a distinguished
Virginian: Mr. Wirt, in his "Life of Patrick Henry," speaking of the
different classes in Virginia, says: "Last and lowest, a _feculum_ of
beings called overseers--the _most abject_, _degraded_, _unprincipled_
race--always cap in hand to the Dons who employed them, and furnishing
materials for the exercise of their pride, insolence, and spirit of
domination."
The Gentoo code, the most ancient in the world, allowed a wife, a son,
a pupil, a younger brother, or a slave, to be whipped with a lash, or
bamboo twig, in such a manner as not to occasion any dangerous hurt; and
whoever transgressed the rule, suffered the punishment of a thief. In
this case, the slave and other members of the family were _equally_
protected.
The Mosaic law was as follows: "If a man smite the eye of his servant,
or the eye of his maid, that it perish, _he shall let him go free_ for
his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his
maid-servant's tooth, _he shall let him go free_ for his tooth's sake."
Exodus, xxi. 26, 27.
PROP. 7.--_The slave never allowed to resist a white man._
It is enacted in Georgia, "If any slave shall presume to strike _any_
white man, such slave, upon trial and conviction before the justice,
shall for the _first_ offence, suffer such punishment as the said
justice thinks fit, not extending to life or limb; and for the second
offence, _death_." It is the same in South Carolina, excepting that
death is there the punishment of the _third_ offence. However wanton
and dangerous the attack upon the slave may be, he must submit; there
is only one proviso--he may be excused for striking in defence of his
_master_, _overseer_, &c., and of _their_ property. In Maryland, a
colored man, even if he be _free_, may have his ears cropped for
striking a white man. In Kentucky, it is enacted that "if any negro,
mulatto, or Indian, bond or _free_, shall at any time lift his or her
hand, in opposition to _any_ person not colored, they shall, the offence
being proved before a justice of the peace, receive thirty lashes on his
or her bare back, well laid on." There is a ridiculous gravity in the
following section of a law in Louisiana: "Free people of color ought
never to insult or strike white people, nor presume to conceive
themselves equal to the whites; but on the contrary, they ought to yield
to them _on every occasion_, and never speak or answer them but with
respect, under the penalty of imprisonment, according to the nature of
the offence."
Such laws are a positive _inducement_ to violent and vicious white men
to oppress and injure people of color. In this point of view, a negro
becomes the slave of every white man in the community. The brutal
drunkard, or the ferocious madman, can beat, rob, and mangle him with
perfect impunity. Dr. Torrey, in his "Portraiture of Domestic Slavery,"
relates an affecting anecdote, which happened near Washington. A free
negro walking along the road, was set upon by two intoxicated ruffians
on horseback, who, without any provocation, began to torture him for
_amusement_. One of them tied him to the tail of his horse, and thus
dragged him along, while the other followed, applying the lash. The poor
fellow died by the roadside, in consequence of this treatment.
The _owner_ may prosecute when a slave is rendered unfit for labor, by
personal violence; and in the reports of these cases many painful facts
come to light which would otherwise have remained for ever unknown. See
Judicial Reports.
PROP. 8.--_Slaves cannot redeem themselves or change masters._
Stroud says, "as to the right of _redemption_, this proposition holds
good in all the slaveholding States; and is equally true as it respects
the right to compel a _change of masters_, except in Louisiana.
According to the new civil code of that State, the latter privilege may
sometimes, perhaps, be obtained by the slave. But the master must first
be _convicted_ of cruelty--a task so formidable that it can hardly be
ranked among possibilities; and secondly, it is _optional_ with the
judge, whether or not, to make the decree in favor of the slave."
If a slave should _not_ obtain a decree in his favor, what has he to
expect from a master exasperated against him, for making the attempt?
At Athens, so deservedly admired for the mildness of her slave laws, the
door of freedom was opened widely. The abused slaves might fly to the
Temple of Theseus, whence no one had a right to take them, except for
the purpose of publicly investigating their wrongs. If their complaints
were well founded, they were either enfranchised, or delivered to more
merciful hands.
In the Roman Empire, from the time of Adrian and the Antonines, slaves
were protected by the laws, and undue severity being proved, they
received freedom or a different master.
By the _Code Noir_ of the French islands, a slave cruelly treated is
forfeited to the crown; and the court, which judges the offence, has
power to confer freedom on the sufferer. In the Spanish and Portuguese
colonies, a slave on complaint of ill-usage obtains public protection;
he may be manumitted, or change his master.
PROP. 9.--_Slave unprotected in his domestic relations._
In proof of this, it is only necessary to repeat that the slave and his
wife, and his daughters, are considered as the _property_ of their
owners, and compelled to yield implicit obedience--that he is allowed to
give no evidence--that he must not resist _any_ white man, under _any_
circumstances which do not interfere with his _master's_ interest--and
finally, that public opinion ridicules the slave's claim to any
exclusive right in his own wife and children.
In Athens, the female slave could demand protection from the
magistrates; and if her complaints of insulting treatment were well
founded, she could be sold to another master, who, in his turn,
forfeited his claim by improper conduct.
PROP. 10.--_The laws obstruct emancipation._
In nearly all slaveholding States, a slave emancipated by his master's
will, may be seized and sold to satisfy _any debt_. In Louisiana,
fraud of creditors is by law considered as _proved_, if it can be
made to appear that the master, at the moment of executing the deed of
enfranchisement, had not sufficient property to pay all his debts; and
if after payment of debts, there be not personal estate enough to
satisfy the widow's claim to one third, his slaves, though declared to
be free by his last will, are nevertheless liable to be sold for the
widow's portion.--In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi,
a valid emancipation can only be gained by authority of the Legislature,
expressly granted. A slave-owner _cannot_ manumit his slaves without the
formal consent of the Legislature. "In Georgia, any attempt to free a
slave in any other manner than the prescribed form, is punished by a
fine of two hundred dollars for each _offence_; and the slave or slaves
are still, to all intents and purposes, in a state of slavery." A new
act was passed in that State in 1818, by which any person, who endeavors
to enfranchise a slave by will, testament, contract, or stipulation,
or who contrives indirectly to confer freedom by allowing his slaves
to enjoy the profit of their labor and skill, incurs a penalty not
exceeding _one thousand dollars_; and the slaves who have been the
object of such benevolence, are ordered to be seized and sold at public
outcry.
In North Carolina, "no slave is allowed to be set free, except for
_meritorious services_, to be adjudged of and allowed by the county
court, and license first had and obtained thereupon;" and any slave
manumitted contrary to this regulation may be seized, put in jail, and
sold to the highest bidder. In Mississippi _all_ the above obstacles
to emancipation are combined in one act.
In Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland, greater facilities are
afforded to emancipation. An instrument in writing, signed by two
witnesses, or acknowledged by the owner of the slave in open court,
is sufficient; the court reserving the power to demand security for
the maintenance of aged or infirm slaves. By the Virginia laws, an
emancipated negro, more than twenty-one years old, is liable to be again
reduced to slavery, if he remain in the State more than twelve months
after his manumission.
In Louisiana, a slave cannot be emancipated, unless he is thirty years
old and has behaved well at least four years preceding his freedom;
except a slave who has saved the life of his master, his master's wife,
or one of his children. It is necessary to make known to the judge the
intention of conferring freedom, who may authorize it, after it has been
advertised at the door of the court-house forty days, without exciting
any opposition.
Stephens, in his history of West India slavery, supposes that the
colonial codes of England are the only ones expressly framed to obstruct
emancipation. He is mistaken;--the American _republics_ share that
distinction with their mother country. There are plenty of better things
in England to imitate.
According to the Mosaic law, a Hebrew could not retain his brother,
whom he might buy as a servant, more than six years, against his
consent, and in the seventh year he went out free for nothing. If he
came by himself, he went out by himself; if he were married when he
came, his wife went with him. _Exodus_ xxi, _Deut._ xv, _Jeremiah_
xxxiv. Besides this, Hebrew slaves were, without exception, restored
to freedom by the _Jubilee_.--"Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and
proclaim liberty throughout the land, and unto all the inhabitants
thereof." _Leviticus_ xxv, 10.
At Athens, if the slave possessed property enough to buy his freedom,
the law compelled the master to grant it, whenever the money was
offered.
The severe laws of Rome discouraged manumission; but it was a very
common thing for slaves to pay for freedom, out of their _peculium_; and
public opinion made it dishonorable to retain them in bondage under such
circumstances. "According to Cicero, sober and industrious slaves, who
became such by captivity in war, seldom remained in servitude above six
years."
"In Turkey, the right of redemption is expressly regulated by the
Koran. The master is commanded to give to all his slaves, that behave
themselves faithfully, a writing, fixing beforehand the price at which
they may be redeemed; and which he is bound to accept, when tendered by
them, or on their behalf."
"In Brazil, a slave who can pay the value of his servitude, (the fair
price of which may be settled by the magistrate,) has a right to demand
his freedom. And the case frequently happens; for the slaves have one
day in the week, and in some places two days, exclusively of Sundays and
other festivals, which the industrious employ in providing a fund for
their redemption."
"In the Spanish colonies, the law is still more liberal. The civil
magistrates are empowered to decide upon the just price of a slave,
and when the negro is able to offer this sum, his master is compelled
to grant his freedom. He may even redeem himself progressively. For
instance, by paying a sixth part of his appreciation, he may redeem for
his own use one day in the week; by employing this industriously, he
will soon be enabled to buy another day; by pursuing the same laudable
course, the remainder of his time may be redeemed with continually
accelerated progress, till he becomes entitled to entire manumission."
PROP. 11.--_Operation of the laws interferes with religious privileges._
No places of public worship are prepared for the negro; and churches
are so scarce in the slaveholding States, compared with the number of
_white_ inhabitants, that it is not to be supposed great numbers of them
follow their masters to such places; and if they did, what could their
rude, and merely sensual minds comprehend of a discourse addressed to
educated men? In Georgia, there is a law which forbids any congregation
or company of negroes to assemble themselves contrary to the act
regulating patrols. Every justice of the peace may go in person, or send
a constable, to disperse any assembly or meeting of slaves, which _may_
disturb the peace, endanger the safety, &c., and every slave taken at
such meetings may, by order of the justice, _without trial_, receive on
the bare back twenty-five stripes with whip, switch, or cowskin. In
South Carolina, an act forbids the police officers to break into any
place of religious meeting before nine o'clock, provided a _majority_ of
the assembly are _white persons_; but if the quorum of white people
should happen to be wanting, every slave would be liable to twenty-five
lashes of the cowskin.
These, and various similar regulations, are obviously made to prevent
insurrections; but it is plain that they must materially interfere with
the slave's opportunities for religious instruction. The fact is, there
are _inconveniences_ attending a general diffusion of Christianity in a
slaveholding State--light must follow its path, and that light would
reveal the surrounding darkness,--slaves might begin to think whether
slavery could be reconciled with religious precepts,--and then the
system is quite too republican--it teaches that all men are children
of the same heavenly Father, who careth alike for all.
The West India planters boldly and openly declared, that slavery and
Christianity could not exist together; in their minds the immediate
inference was, that Christianity must be put down; and very consistently
they began to fine and imprison Methodist missionaries, burn
chapels,[P] &c.
[Footnote P: The slaves of any one owner may meet together for religious
purposes, if authorized by their master, and private chaplains may be
hired to preach to them. The domestic slaves, who are entirely employed
in the family, no doubt fare much better in this respect, than the
plantation slaves; but this, and all other negro privileges, depend
entirely upon the slave's _luck_ in the character of his master.]
In Rome, the introduction of "Christianity abolished slavery; the idea
of exclusive property in our fellow-men was too obviously at variance
with its holy precepts; and its professors, in the sincerity of their
hearts, made a formal surrender of such claims. In various ancient
instruments of emancipation, the masters begin by declaring, that, 'for
the love of God and Jesus Christ, for the easing of their consciences,
and the safety of their souls,' they set their bondmen free."
"It is remarkable that the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain used to
sell their countrymen, and even their own children, to the Irish. The
port of Bristol, afterwards so famous for the African slave-trade, was
then equally distinguished as a market for the same commodity, though
of a different color. But when Ireland, in the year 1172, was afflicted
with public calamities, the clergy and people of that generous nation
began to reproach themselves with the unchristian practice of holding
their fellow-men in slavery. Their English bondmen, though fully paid
for, were, by an unanimous resolution of the Armagh Assembly, set at
liberty. _Their_ repentance dictated present restitution to the injured.
More than six hundred years afterwards, when Mr. Wilberforce made his
first motion for the abolition of the slave-trade, he was supported by
every Irish member of the House of Commons." May God bless thee,
warm-hearted, generous old Ireland!
In the English and Dutch colonies, baptism was generally supposed to
confer freedom on the slave; and for this reason, masters were reluctant
to have them baptized. They got over this difficulty, however, and
married self-interest to conscience, by making a law that "no slave
should become free by being a Christian." This is a striking proof how
closely Christianity and liberty are associated together.
A French planter of St. Domingo, in a book which he published concerning
that colony, admits that it is desirable to have negroes know enough
of religion to make them friends to humanity, and grateful to their
creator; but he considers it very wrong to load their weak minds with
a belief in supernatural dogmas, such as a belief in a future state.
He says, "such knowledge is apt to render them intractable, averse to
labor, and induces them to commit suicide on themselves and their
children, _of which the colony, the State, and commerce have equal
need_."
Our slaveholders, in general, seem desirous to have the slave just
religious enough to know that insurrections and murder are contrary to
the maxims of Christianity; but it is very difficult to have them learn
just so much as this, without learning more. In Georgia, I have been
told, that a very general prejudice prevails against white missionaries.
To avoid this danger, old domestic slaves, who are better informed than
the plantation slaves, are employed to hear sermons and repeat them to
their brethren; and their repetitions are said to be strange samples of
pulpit eloquence. One of these old negroes, as the story goes, told his
hearers that the Bible said slaves ought to get their freedom; and if
they could not do it in any other way, they must murder their masters.
The slaves had never been allowed to learn to read, and of course they
could not dispute that such a doctrine was actually in the Scriptures.
Thus do unjust and absurd laws "return to plague the inventor."
PROP. 12.--_Whole power of the laws exerted to keep negroes in
ignorance._
South Carolina made the first law upon this subject. While yet a
_province_, she laid a penalty of one hundred pounds upon any person who
taught a slave to write, or allowed him to be taught to write.[Q] In
Virginia, any school for teaching reading and writing, either to slaves,
or to free people of color, is considered _an unlawful assembly_, and
may accordingly be dispersed, and punishment administered upon each
pupil, not exceeding twenty lashes.
[Footnote Q: Yet it has been said that these laws are entirely owing
to the rash efforts of the abolitionists.]
In South Carolina, the law is the same.
The city of Savannah, in Georgia, a few years ago, passed an ordinance,
by which "any person that teaches a person of color, slave or free, to
read or write, or causes such persons to be so taught, is subjected to
a fine of thirty dollars for each offence; and every person of color who
shall teach reading or writing, is subject to a fine of thirty dollars,
or to be imprisoned ten days and whipped thirty-nine lashes."
From these facts it is evident that legislative power prevents a master
from giving liberty and instruction to his slave, even when such a
course would be willingly pursued by a benevolent individual. The laws
allow almost unlimited power to do _mischief_; but the power to do
_good_ is effectually restrained.
PROP. 13.--_There is a monstrous inequality of law and right._
In a civilized country, one would expect that if any disproportion
existed in the laws, it would be in favor of the ignorant and
defenceless; but the reverse is lamentably the case here. _Obedience_ to
the laws is the price freemen pay for the _protection_ of the laws;--but
the same legislatures which absolutely sanction the negro's _wrongs_,
and, to say the least, make very inadequate provisions for his _safety_,
claim the right to _punish_ him with inordinate severity.
"In Kentucky, white men are condemned to death for _four_ crimes only;
slaves meet a similar punishment for _eleven_ crimes. In South Carolina,
white persons suffer death for _twenty-seven_ crimes; slaves incur a
similar fate for _thirty-six_ crimes. In Georgia, whites are punished
capitally for _three_ crimes only; slaves for _at least nine_."
Stroud says there are _seventy-one_ crimes in the slave States, for
which negroes are punished with _death_, and for each and every one of
these crimes the white man suffers nothing worse than imprisonment in
the penitentiary.
"Trial by jury is utterly denied to the slave, _even in criminal
accusations which may affect his life_; in South Carolina, Virginia,
and Louisiana, instead of a jury, is substituted a tribunal composed of
two justices of the peace and from three to five _free_-holders, (i. e.
_slave_-holders.) In Virginia, it is composed of five justices merely.
What chance has an ignorant slave before a tribunal chosen by his
accuser, suddenly convoked, and consisting of but five persons?"
If a slave is found out of the limits of the town in which he lives, or
beyond the plantation on which he is usually employed, without a written
permission from his master, or the company of some white person, _any
body_ may inflict twenty lashes upon him; and if the slave resist such
punishment, he may be lawfully _killed_.
If a slave visit another plantation without leave in writing from his
master, the owner of the plantation may give him ten lashes.
More than seven slaves walking or standing together in the road, without
a white man, may receive twenty lashes each from any person.
Any slave, or Indian, who takes away, or lets loose a boat, from any
place where it is fastened, receives thirty-nine lashes for the first
offence; and, according to some laws, one ear is cut off for the second
offence.
For carrying a gun, powder, shot, a club, or any weapon whatsoever,
offensive or defensive, thirty-nine lashes by order of a justice; and
in some States, twenty lashes from the nearest constable, _without_ a
conviction by the justice.
For selling any article, without a specific ticket from his master, ten
lashes by the captain of the patrollers,[R] or thirty-nine by order of
a magistrate. The same punishment for being at any assembly deemed
_unlawful_.
[Footnote R: The patrols are very generally low and dissipated
characters, and the cruelties which negroes suffer from them, while in
a state of intoxication, are sometimes shocking. The law endows these
men with very great power.]
For travelling by himself from his master's land to any other place,
unless by the most accustomed road, forty lashes; the same for
travelling in the night without a pass; the same for being found in
another negro's kitchen, or quarters; and every negro found _in company_
with such vagrant, receives twenty lashes.
For hunting with dogs, even in the woods of his master, thirty lashes.
For running away and lurking in swamps, a negro may be lawfully _killed_
by any person. If a slave _happen_ to die of _moderate_ correction, it
is likewise justifiable homicide.
For endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions are
prepared, the slave is punished with DEATH; and any negro aiding or
abetting suffers DEATH.
Thirty-nine stripes for harboring a runaway slave one hour.
For disobeying orders, imprisonment as long as the master chooses.
For riding on horseback, without written permission, or for keeping a
dog, twenty-five lashes.
For rambling, riding, or going abroad in the night, or riding horses in
the day without leave, a slave may be whipped, cropped, or branded on
the cheek with the letter R, or otherwise punished, not extending to
life, nor _so as to unfit him for labor_.
For beating the Patuxent river, to catch fish, ten lashes; for placing a
seine across Transquakin and Chickwiccimo creeks, thirty-nine lashes by
order of a justice.
For advising the murder of a person, one hundred lashes may be given.
A runaway slave may be put into jail, and the jailer must forthwith send
a letter by mail, to the man whom the negro says is his owner. If an
answer does not arrive at the proper time, the jailer must inflict
twenty-five lashes, well laid on, and interrogate anew. If the slave's
second statement be not corroborated by the letter from the owner,
twenty-five lashes are again administered.--The act very coolly
concludes thus: "and so on, for the space of _six months_, it shall be
the duty of the jailer to interrogate and whip as aforesaid."
The letter may miscarry, the owner may reside at a great distance from
the Post-Office, and thus long delays may occur--the ignorant slave may
not know his master's christian name--the jailer may not spell it
aright; but no matter--"It is the jailer's duty to interrogate and whip,
as aforesaid."
The last authorized edition of the laws of Maryland, comprises the
following: "If any slave be convicted of any petit treason, or murder,
or wilfully burning of dwelling-houses, it may be lawful for the
justices to give judgment against such slave to have the right hand cut
off, to be hanged in the usual manner, the head severed from the body,
the body divided into four quarters, and the head and quarters set up in
the most public places of the county," &c.
The laws of Tennessee and Missouri are comparatively mild; yet in
Missouri it is _death_ to prepare or administer medicine without the
master's consent, unless it can be _proved_ that there was no evil
intention. The law in Virginia is similar; it requires proof that there
was no evil intention, and that the medicine produced no bad
consequences.
To estimate fully the cruel injustice of these laws, it must be
remembered that the poor slave is without religious instruction, unable
to read, too ignorant to comprehend legislation, and holding so little
communication with any person better informed than himself, that the
chance is, he does not even know the _existence_ of half the laws by
which he suffers. This is worthy of Nero, who caused his edicts to be
placed so high that they could not be read, and then beheaded his
subjects for disobeying them.
PROP. 14.--_The laws operate oppressively on free colored people._
Free people of color, like the slaves, are excluded by law from all
means of obtaining the common elements of education.
The free colored man may at any time be taken up on suspicion, and be
condemned and imprisoned as a runaway slave, unless he can _prove_ the
contrary; and be it remembered, none but _white_ evidence, or written
documents, avail him. The common law supposes a man to be innocent until
he is proved guilty; but slave law turns this upside down. Every colored
man is _presumed_ to be a slave till it can be proved otherwise; this
rule prevails in all the slave States, except North Carolina, where it
is confined to negroes. Stephens supposes this harsh doctrine to be
peculiar to the British Colonial Code; but in this he is again
mistaken--the American _republics_ share the honor with England.
A law passed in December, 1822, in South Carolina, provides that any
free colored persons coming into port on board of any vessel shall be
seized and imprisoned during the stay of the vessel; and when she is
ready to depart, the captain shall take such free negroes and pay the
expenses of their arrest and imprisonment; and in case of refusing so to
do, he shall be indicted and fined not less than one thousand dollars,
and imprisoned not less than two months; and such free negroes shall
be sold for slaves. The Circuit Court of the United States, adjudged
the law unconstitutional and void. Yet nearly _two years_ after this
decision, four colored English seamen were taken out of the brig
Marmion. England made a formal complaint to our government. Mr. Wirt,
the Attorney-General, gave the opinion that the law was unconstitutional.
This, as well as the above-mentioned decision, excited strong indignation
in South Carolina. Notwithstanding the decision, the law still remains
in force, and other States have followed the example of South Carolina,
though with a more cautious observance of appearances.
In South Carolina, if any free negro harbor, conceal, or entertain,
any runaway slave, or a slave charged with _any_ criminal matter, he
forfeits ten pounds for the first day, and twenty shillings for every
succeeding day. In case of inability to pay, the free negro is sold at
auction, and if any overplus remain, after the fines and attendant
expenses are paid, it is put into the hands of the public treasurer.
The free negro may entertain a slave without _knowing_ that he has done
any thing wrong; but his declaration to that effect is of no avail.
Where every effort is made to prevent colored people from obtaining any
money, they are of course often unable to pay the penalties imposed.
If any omission is made in the forms of emancipation established by law,
_any person whatsoever_ may seize the negro so manumitted, and
appropriate him to their own use.
If a free colored person remain in Virginia twelve months after his
manumission, he can be sold by the overseers of the poor for the benefit
of the _literary fund_!
In Georgia, a free colored man, except a regular articled seaman, is
fined one hundred dollars for coming into the State; and if he cannot
pay it, may be sold at public outcry. This act has been changed to one
of increased severity. A free colored person cannot be a witness against
a white man. They may therefore be robbed, assaulted, kidnapped and
carried off with impunity; and even the legislatures of the old slave
States adopt it as a maxim that it is very desirable to get rid of them.
It is of no avail to _declare_ themselves free; the law _presumes_ them
to be slaves, unless they can _prove_ to the contrary. In many instances
written documents of freedom have been wrested from free colored people
and destroyed by kidnappers. A lucrative internal slave-trade furnishes
constant temptation to the commission of such crimes; and the _new_
States of Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and the territories of
Arkansas, and the Floridas, are not likely to be glutted for years to
come.
In Philadelphia, though remote from a slave market, it has been
ascertained that _more than thirty_ free persons of color, were stolen
and carried off within _two_ years. Stroud says: "Five of these have
been restored to their friends, by the interposition of humane
gentlemen, though not without great expense and difficulty. The others
are still in bondage; and if rescued at all, it must be by sending
_white_ witnesses a journey of more than a thousand miles."
I know the names of four colored citizens of Massachusetts, who went
to Georgia on board a vessel, were seized under the laws of that State,
and sold as slaves. They have sent the most earnest exhortations to
their families and friends to do something for their relief; but the
attendant expenses require more money than the friends of negroes are
apt to have, and the poor fellows as yet remain unassisted.
A New-York paper, November, 1829, contains the following caution:
"_Beware of kidnappers!_--It is _well understood_ that there is at
present in this city, a gang of kidnappers, busily engaged in their
vocation of stealing colored children for the Southern market! It is
believed that three or four have been stolen within as many days. A
little negro boy came to this city from the country three or four days
ago. Some strange white persons were very friendly to him, and yesterday
morning he was mightily pleased that they had given him some new
clothes. And the persons pretending thus to befriend him, entirely
secured his confidence. This day he cannot be found. Nor can he be
traced since seen with one of his new friends yesterday. There are
suspicions of a foul nature, connected with some who serve the police
in subordinate capacities. It is hinted that there may be those in some
authority, not altogether ignorant of these diabolical practices. Let
the public be on their guard! It is still fresh in the memories of all,
that a cargo, or rather drove, of negroes, was made up from this city
and Philadelphia, about the time that the emancipation of all the
negroes in this State took place under our present constitution, and
were taken through Virginia, the Carolinas, and Tennessee, and disposed
of in the State of Mississippi. Some of those who were taken from
Philadelphia were persons of intelligence, and after they had been
driven through the country in chains, and disposed of by sale on the
Mississippi, wrote back to their friends, and were rescued from bondage.
The persons who were guilty of this abominable transaction are known,
and now reside in North Carolina; they may, very probably, be engaged
in similar enterprises at the present time--at least there is reason
to believe that the system of kidnapping free persons of color from the
Northern cities has been carried on more extensively than the public are
generally aware of."
This, and other evils of the system, admit of no radical cure but the
utter extinction of slavery. To enact _laws_ prohibiting the slave
traffic, and at the same time tempt avarice by the allurements of an
_insatiable market_, is irreconcilable and absurd.
To my great surprise, I find that the free States of Ohio and Indiana
disgrace themselves by admitting the same maxim of law, which prevents
any black or mulatto from being a witness against a white man!
It is naturally supposed that free negroes will sympathize with their
enslaved brethren, and that, notwithstanding all exertions to the
contrary, they will become a little more intelligent; this excites a
peculiar jealousy and hatred in the white population, of which it is
impossible to enumerate all the hardships. Even in the _laws_, slaves
are always mentioned before free people of color; so desirous are they
to degrade the latter class below the level of the former. To complete
the wrong, this unhappy class are despised in consequence of the very
evils we ourselves have induced--for as slavery inevitably makes its
victims servile and vicious, and as none but negroes are allowed to
be slaves, we, from our very childhood, associate every thing that
is degraded with the _mere color_; though in fact the object of our
contempt may be both exemplary and intelligent. In this way the Africans
are doubly the victims of our injustice; and thus does prejudice "_make_
the meat it feeds on."
I have repeatedly said that our slave laws are continually increasing
in severity; as a proof of this I will give a brief view of some of
the most _striking_, which have been passed since Stroud published his
compendium of slave laws, in 1827. In the first class are contained
those enactments _directly_ oppressive to people of color; in the second
are those which injure them _indirectly_, by the penalties or
disabilities imposed upon the whites who instruct, assist, or employ
them, or endeavor in any way to influence public opinion in their favor.
_Class First._--The Legislature of Virginia passed a law in 1831, by
which any free colored person who undertakes to preach, or conduct
any religious meeting, by day or night, may be whipped not exceeding
thirty-nine lashes, at the discretion of _any_ justice of the peace; and
any body may apprehend any such free colored person without a warrant.
The same penalty, adjudged and executed in the same way, falls upon any
slave, or free colored person, who attends such preaching; and any slave
who listens to any _white_ preacher, in the night time, receives the
same punishment. The same law prevails in Georgia and Mississippi. A
master may permit a slave to preach on _his_ plantation, to none but
_his_ slaves.
There is a _naiveté_ in the following preamble to a law passed by North
Carolina, in 1831, which would be amusing, if the subject were not too
serious for mirth: "_Whereas teaching slaves to read and write has a
tendency to excite dissatisfaction in their minds_, and to produce
insurrection and rebellion," therefore it is enacted that teaching a
slave to read or write, or giving or selling to a slave _any_ book or
pamphlet, shall be punished with thirty-nine lashes, if the offender be
a free black, or with imprisonment at the discretion of the court; if a
slave, the _offence_ is punishable with thirty-nine lashes, on his or
her bare back, on conviction before a justice of the peace.
In Georgia, any slave, or free person of color, is for a similar
offence, fined or whipped, or fined _and_ whipped, at the discretion of
the court.
In Louisiana, twelve months' imprisonment is the penalty for teaching
a slave to read or write.
For publishing, or circulating, in the State of North Carolina, any
pamphlet or paper having an _evident tendency_ to excite slaves, or free
persons of color, to insurrection or resistance, imprisonment not less
than one year, _and_ standing in the pillory, _and_ whipping, at the
discretion of the court, for the first offence; and death for the
second. The same offence punished with death in Georgia, without any
reservation. In Mississippi, the same as in Georgia. In Louisiana, the
same offence punished either with imprisonment for life, or death, at
the discretion of the court. In Virginia, the first offence of this sort
is punished with thirty-nine lashes, the second with death.
With regard to publications having a _tendency_ to promote discontent
among slaves, their masters are so very jealous, that it would be
difficult to find _any_ book, that would not come under their
condemnation. The Bible, and the Declaration of Independence are
certainly unsafe. The preamble to the North Carolina law declares,
that the _Alphabet_ has a tendency to excite dissatisfaction; I suppose
it is because _freedom_ may be spelt out of it. A storekeeper in South
Carolina was nearly ruined by having unconsciously imported certain
printed _handkerchiefs_, which his neighbors deemed seditious. A friend
of mine asked, "Did the handkerchiefs contain texts from scripture? or
quotations from the Constitution of the United States?"
Emancipated slaves must quit North Carolina in ninety days after their
enfranchisement, on pain of being sold for life. Free persons of color
who shall _migrate into_ that State, may be seized and sold as runaway
slaves; and if they _migrate out_ of the State for more than ninety
days, they can never return under the same penalty.
This extraordinary use of the word _migrate_ furnishes a new battering
ram against the free colored class, which is every where so odious to
slave-owners. A _visit_ to relations in another State may be called
_migrating_; being taken up and detained by _kidnappers_, over ninety
days, may be called _migrating_;--for where neither the evidence of the
sufferer nor any of his own color is allowed, it will evidently amount
to this.
In South Carolina, if a free negro cross the line of the State, he can
_never_ return.
In 1831, Mississippi passed a law to expel all free colored persons
under sixty and over sixteen years of age from the State, within ninety
days, unless they could prove good characters, and obtain from the court
a certificate of the same, for which they paid three dollars; these
certificates might be revoked at the discretion of the county courts. If
such persons do not quit the State within the time specified, or if they
return to it, they may be sold for a term not exceeding five years.
In Tennessee, slaves are not allowed to be emancipated unless they leave
the State forthwith. Any free colored person emigrating into this State,
is fined from ten to fifty dollars, and hard labor in the penitentiary
from one to two years.
North Carolina has made a law subjecting any vessel with _free_ colored
persons on board to thirty days' quarantine; as if freedom were as bad
as the cholera! Any person of color coming on shore from such vessels is
seized and imprisoned, till the vessel departs; and the captain is fined
five hundred dollars; and if he refuse to take the colored seaman away,
and pay all the expenses of his imprisonment, he is fined five hundred
more. If the sailor do not depart within ten days after his captain's
refusal, he must be whipped thirty-nine lashes; and all colored persons,
bond or free, who _communicate_ with him, receive the same.
In Georgia, there is a similar enactment. The prohibition is, in both
States, confined to _merchant_ vessels, (it would be imprudent to meddle
with _vessels of war_;) and any colored person communicating with such
seaman is whipped not exceeding _thirty_ lashes. If the captain refuse
to carry away seamen thus detained, and _pay the expenses of their
imprisonment_, he shall be fined five hundred dollars, and also
imprisoned, not exceeding three months.
These State laws are a direct violation of the Laws of Nations, and our
treaties; and may involve the United States in a foreign war.
Colored seamen are often employed in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and
English vessels. These nations are bound to know the United States Laws;
but can they be expected to know the enactments of particular States and
cities? and if they know them, are they bound to observe them, if
they interfere with the established rules of nations? When Mr. Wirt
pronounced these laws unconstitutional, great excitement was produced
in South Carolina. The Governor of that State, in his Message to the
Legislature, implied that separation from the Union was the only remedy,
if the laws of the Southern States could not be enforced. They seem to
require unconditional submission abroad as well as at home.
The endeavor to prevent insurrections in this way, is as wise as to
attempt to extinguish fire with spirits of wine. The short-sighted
policy defeats itself. A free colored sailor was lately imprisoned with
seven slaves: Here was a fine opportunity to sow the seeds of sedition
in their minds!
The upholders of slavery will in vain contend with the liberal spirit
of the age; it is too strong for them. They may as well try to bottle
up the sunshine for their own exclusive use, as to attempt to keep
knowledge and freedom to themselves. We all know that such an experiment
would result in bottling up darkness for themselves, while exactly the
same amount of sunshine remained abroad for the use of their neighbors.
In North Carolina, free negroes are whipped, fined, and imprisoned, at
the discretion of the court, for intermarrying with slaves.
In Georgia, free colored persons when unable to pay _any_ fine, may be
sold for a space of time not exceeding five years. This limitation does
not probably avail much; if sold to another master before the five years
expired, they would never be likely to be free again.
Several other laws have been passed in Georgia, prohibiting slaves from
living apart from their master, either to labor for other persons, or to
sell refreshments, or to carry on any trade or business although with
their master's consent. Any person of color, bond or free, is forbidden
to occupy any tenement except a _kitchen_ or an _outhouse_, under
penalty of from twenty to fifty lashes. Some of these laws are
applicable only to particular cities, towns, or counties; others to
several counties.
Sundry general laws of a penal nature have been made more penal; and the
number of offences, for which a colored person may suffer _death_, is
increased.
A law passed in Tennessee, in 1831, provides that negroes for conspiracy
to rebel, shall be punished with whipping, imprisonment and pillory, at
the discretion of the court; it has this curious proviso--"Householders
_may_ serve as jurors, if _slaveholders_ cannot be had!"[S] The Southern
courts need to have a great deal of _discretion_, since so much is
trusted to it.
[Footnote S: The Common Law assigns for the trial of a foreigner, six
jurors of his own nation, and six native Englishmen.]
_Class Second._--In Virginia, _white_ persons who teach any colored
person to read or write, are fined not exceeding fifty dollars; for
teaching slaves for pay, from ten to twenty dollars for each offence.
In Georgia, a similar offence is fined not exceeding five hundred
dollars, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court. Knowledge seems
to be peculiarly _pokerish_ in Georgia.
In North Carolina, if a white person teach a slave to read or write, or
give or sell him _any_ book, &c., he is fined from one to two hundred
dollars.
In Louisiana, any white person, who teaches a slave to read or write,
is imprisoned one year. And if any person shall use any language from
the _bar_, _bench_, _stage_, _pulpit_, or any other place,--or hold
any conversation having a _tendency_ to promote discontent among free
colored people, or insubordination among slaves, he may be imprisoned at
hard labor, not less than three, nor more than twenty-one years; or he
may suffer death--at the discretion of the court.
In Mississippi, a white man, who prints or circulates doctrines,
sentiments, advice, or _innuendoes_, likely to produce discontent among
the colored class, is fined from one hundred to a thousand dollars, and
imprisoned from three to twelve months.
All the States which have pronounced an anathema against books and
alphabets, have likewise forbidden that any colored man shall be
employed in a printing-office, under the penalty of ten dollars for
every offence.
In Mississippi, any white who employs, or receives a free colored
person, without a certificate of freedom, written on parchment, forfeits
_one thousand dollars_.
If any master, in that State, allows his slaves to sell any wares or
merchandise out of the incorporated towns, he is liable to a fine of
from fifty to five hundred dollars.
In Virginia, any person who buys of a slave any article belonging to his
master, forfeits from ten to fifty dollars; if the purchase be made on
Sunday, ten dollars more are added to the fine for each article.
This enactment is evidently made to prevent a slave from obtaining any
money, or holding communication with freemen; a particular proviso is
made against Sunday, because the slave has usually more leisure on that
day. It is to be remembered that all a slave has belongs to his master.
To carry a slave out of North Carolina, or conceal him with intent to
carry him out, is punished with death.
If a runaway slave die in prison, before he or she can be sold, _the
county pays the sheriff and jailer_; formerly these officers depended on
the life and marketableness of their prisoners for security; but even
this poor motive for kindness is now taken away. If ninety-nine out of
a hundred die in prison, they will be heard of only in the _jailer's
bill_. I never heard or read of an _inquest_ upon the body of a slave
found dead. Under the term "runaway slaves" are included many free
colored persons taken up unjustly.
Well might Jefferson say, "I tremble for my country, when I reflect that
God is just!"
In travelling over this dreary desert, it is pleasant to arrive at one
little oasis: Louisiana _has_ enacted that slaves brought into that
State for sale, shall forthwith be set free; but they must be sent out
of the State.
It is worthy of remark that England pursues a totally different course
with regard to allowing slaves to communicate with free people. Their
recent laws are all calculated to make it easy for the slave to
obtain a fair hearing from people who have no interest to suppress his
complaints. He may go upon any plantation, and communicate with any
person; and whoever tries to prevent his going to a magistrate is guilty
of a misdemeanor.
They have abolished all distinction between white and colored witnesses.
The law expressly stipulates the quality and quantity of provisions.
Inquest is held upon the bodies of slaves dying suddenly, or from any
suspected violence.
Use of the cart-whip prohibited; and no female to be punished except by
order of the court.
Only fifteen lashes allowed as a punishment to men for one offence, and
in one day: two kinds of punishment never allowed for one offence.
When a slave is punished, two competent witnesses must be present.
The owner is obliged to keep a record of domestic punishments and the
causes.
Marriages among slaves are encouraged, and husband and wife are not
allowed to be sold separately. Children under sixteen years old cannot
be separated from their parents.
Masters illegally punishing their slaves, are subject to fine,
imprisonment, and loss of the slave, for the first offence; for the
second offence, sequestration of all their slaves.
Free colored representatives are allowed to take their seats in the
legislature, and share all the other privileges of British subjects.
Yet these humane laws, so carefully framed in favor of the defenceless,
have been found insufficient to protect the slave. Experience proves,
what reason clearly points out, that the force of good laws must be
weakened by the very nature of this unholy relation. Where there is
knowledge and freedom on one side, and ignorance and servitude on the
other, evasions and subterfuges will of course be frequent. Hence
English philanthropists have universally come to the conclusion that
nothing effectual can be done, unless slavery itself be destroyed.
The limits of this work compel me to pass by many enactments in our
slaveholding States, which would throw still more light on this dark
subject.
I have laid open some of the laws which do actually exist, and are
constantly enforced in this free country; and knowing all this, and
still more, to be true, I blush and hang my head, whenever I hear any
one boast of our "glorious institutions."
The slaveholders insist that their _humanity_ is so great, as to render
all their ferocious laws perfectly harmless. Are the laws then made on
purpose to urge tender-hearted masters to be so much worse than they
really desire to be? The democrats of the South appear to be less
scrupulous about the liberties of others, than the Autocrat of the
Russias;--for, when Madame de Staël told the Emperor Alexander that his
_character_ answered instead of a _constitution_ for his country, he
replied, "Then, madam, I am but a lucky _accident_." How much more
emphatically may it be said, that the slave's destiny is a matter of
chance! Reader, would you trust the very best man you know, with your
time, your interests, your family, and your life, unless the contract
were guarded on every side by the strong arm of the law? If a
money-loving neighbor could force you to toil, and could gain a certain
number of dollars for every hour of your labor, how much rest should you
expect to have?
It is utter nonsense to say that generosity of disposition is a
protection against tyranny, where all the power is on one side. It may
be, and it no doubt is so, in particular instances; but they must be
exceptions to the general rule.
We all know that the Southerners have a high sense of what the world
calls honor, and that they are brave, hospitable, and generous to people
of their own color; but the more we respect their virtues, the more
cause is there to lament the demoralizing _system_, which produces such
unhappy effects on all who come within its baneful influence. Most of
them may be as kind as can be expected of human nature, endowed with
almost unlimited power to do wrong; and some of them may be even more
benevolent than the warmest friend of the negro would dare to hope; but
while we admit all this, we must not forget that there is in every
community a class of men, who will not be any better than the laws
compel them to be.
Captain Riley, in his Narrative, says: "Strange as it may seem to the
philanthropist, my free and proud-spirited countrymen still hold a
million and a half[T] of human beings in the most cruel bonds of
slavery; who are kept at hard labor, and smarting under the lash of
inhuman mercenary drivers; in many instances enduring the miseries of
hunger, thirst, imprisonment, cold, nakedness, and even tortures. This
is no picture of the imagination. For the honor of human nature, I wish
likenesses were nowhere to be found! I myself have witnessed such scenes
in different parts of my own country; and the bare recollection of them
now chills my blood with horror."
[Footnote T: There are now over two million.]
When the slave-owners talk of their gentleness and compassion, they are
witnesses in their own favor, and have strong motives for showing the
fairest side. But what do the laws themselves imply? Are enactments ever
made against exigencies which do not exist? If negroes have never been
scalded, burned, mutilated, &c., why are such crimes forbidden by an
express law, with the marvellous proviso, except said slave _die_ of
"_moderate_ punishment!" If a law sanctioning whipping to any extent,
incarceration at the discretion of the master, and the body loaded with
irons, is called a _restraining_ law, let me ask what crimes must have
been committed, to require _prohibition_, where so much is _allowed_?
The law which declares that slaves shall be compelled to labor _only_
fourteen or fifteen hours a day, has the following preamble: "Whereas
_many_ owners of slaves, managers, &c. _do_ confine them so closely to
hard labor that they have not sufficient time for natural rest," &c. Mr.
Pinckney, in a public argument, speaking of slaves murdered by severe
treatment, says: "The _frequency_ of the crime is no doubt owing to the
nature of the punishment." The reader will observe that I carefully
refrain from quoting the representations of party spirit, and refer to
_facts_ only for evidence.
Where the laws are made by the people, a majority of course approve
them; else they would soon be changed. It must therefore in candor be
admitted, that the _laws_ of a State speak the prevailing _sentiments_
of the inhabitants.
Judging by this rule, what inference must be drawn from the facts stated
above? "At Sparta, the freeman is the freest of all men, and the slave
is the greatest of slaves."
Our republic is a perfect Pandora's box to the negro, only there is no
_hope_ at the bottom. The wretchedness of his fate is not a little
increased by being a constant witness of the unbounded freedom enjoyed
by others: the slave's labor must necessarily be like the labor of
Sisiphus; and here the torments of Tantalus are added.
Slavery is so inconsistent with free institutions, and the spirit of
liberty is so contagious under such institutions, that the system must
either be given up, or sustained by laws outrageously severe; hence we
find that our slave laws have each year been growing more harsh than
those of any other nation.
Shall I be told that all these regulations are necessary for the white
man's safety? What then, let me indignantly ask, what must the system
be that _requires_ to be supported by such unnatural, such tyrannical
means? The very apology pronounces the condemnation of slavery--for it
proves that it cannot exist without producing boundless misery to the
oppressed, and perpetual terror to the oppressor.
In our fourth of July orations, we are much in the habit of talking
about the tyranny of England! and there is no doubt that broad and deep
stains do rest upon her history. But there is a vulgar proverb that
"those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." In judging of
national, as well as individual wrong, it is fair to consider the amount
of temptation. England has had power, more extensive and permanent than
any nation since the decline of Rome: the negroes and the Indians are
the only people who have been dependant on _our_ justice and
generosity--and how have we treated _them_?
It is a favorite argument that we are not to blame for slavery, because
the British engrafted it upon us, while we were colonies. But did we not
take the liberty to _change_ English laws and customs, when they did
not suit us? Why not put away _this_, as well as other evils of much
less consequence? It could have been done easily, at the time of our
confederation; it _can_ be done now.--Have not other nations been making
alterations for the better, on this very subject, since we became
independent? Is not England trying with all her might to atone for the
wrong she has done? Does not the constitution of the United States, and
the constitution of each individual State, make provision for such
changes as shall tend to the public good?
The plain truth is, the continuation of this system is a sin; and the
sin rests upon us: It has been eloquently said that "by this excuse, we
try to throw the blame upon our ancestors, and leave repentance to
posterity."